Reputation and Production Standards
This paper analyzes a monopolist's behavior when consumers cannot observe the production standards. These types of products are usually known as credence goods. The steady-state level of quality with credence goods is found to be lower than that with experience goods, and perfect information goods. The finding that only perceived quality, which is effectively a filtered version of true quality, affects reputation indicates rewards for high quality production are lower in the credence good case. Further, an increase in the level of monitoring can increase the true level of product quality in the market for credence goods.
Volume (Year): 30 (2005)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://waeaonline.org/|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McCluskey, Jill J., 1999.
"A Game Theoretic Approach to Organic Foods: An Analysis of Asymmetric Information and Policy,"
2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia
123706, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach To Organic Foods: An Analysis Of Asymmetric Information And Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(1), April.
- Noe, Thomas H. & Rebello, Michael J., 1995. "Consumer activism, producer groups, and production standards," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-85, June.
- Doughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1997. "Everybody Out of the Pool: Products Liability, Punitive Damages, and Competition," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 410-32, October.
- Sheshinski, Eytan, 1976. "Price, Quality and Quantity Regulation in Monopoly Situations," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 43(17), pages 127-37, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:30788. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.